TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a period of two years and thereafter she was at liberty to rescind the agreement and forfeit the earnest money which was fixed at Rs. 40,000. The purchasers neither paid the earnest money nor the purchase price within the stipulated period. However, on October 8, 1965, they assigned certain decrees passed in their favour by the Allahabad High Court to the assessee. The purchasers under the said decrees were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 89,000 with future interest and this right was assigned to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 60,000. Rs. 15,000 were paid in cash by the purchasers and the balance of Rs. 45,000 was described as earnest money in respect of the sale agreement dated November 10, 1961. The assessee, being the assig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1967, which was later adjusted between the parties by an arbitration award dated April 20, 1978. The Revenue felt aggrieved by this order because, according to the Department, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in taking on record the agreement dated November 15, 1967, which was not produced by the assessee before the ITO or the AAC. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us for opinion : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the A.T. was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee-lady from M/s. Bharat Stores Ltd., Agra, would be taxable by way of interest or capital gains only and no part of it would be treated as forfeiture of earnest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properly decided without taking into account further evidence, it has jurisdiction to admit further evidence and either to decide the appeal itself or to remand it to the authorities below for deciding the matter afresh after taking into account the additional evidence produced before it. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867. The case is not in point because in the cited case the Allahabad High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in refusing to exercise its discretion to allow or disallow production of further evidence before it. The Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding body under the scheme of the I.T. Act. Powers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
